|
By:Rashed Rahman
It is of course still a mystery what the accord says. Both sides had agreed not to reveal the details. Now the composition of the committee has been thrown into doubt. That will lead to questions about its function and ability
The peaceful resolution of the crisis in Balochistan through political dialogue, that the government has reiterated time and again is its goal, seems tantalisingly close. Yet, there are signs that not all is as it seems at first glance.
First, the Sui-Dera Bugti situation. Chaudry Shujaat Hussain and Mushahid Hussain’s visit to Nawab Akbar Bugti seemed to have achieved a breakthrough of sorts. A committee of three was announced, headed by Mushahid, to oversee the implementation of the accord between the government and the Bugtis. The committee, according to the initial announcement, included Sher Ali Mazari, Akbar Bugti’s nephew. Yet when the committee gave out a press release the other day stating that it had agreed, after long consultations with Akbar Bugti and Sher Ali Mazari, on the modalities for the withdrawal of the Frontier Corps and armed Bugti tribesmen from their respective positions, the reaction from Akbar Bugti was most intriguing.
Akbar Bugti did not disagree with the wording of the press release, but made clear that contrary to what the press release said, Sher Ali Mazari was not part of the committee. He said his nephew, who lived mostly in Islamabad, was only helping liaise between him and the government, and was not empowered to decide any matters pending between the two sides.
This response has thrown another spanner in the works of what the government side claimed was smooth sailing towards the implementation of the accord, while Akbar Bugti and his Jamhoori Watan Party were expressing concerns that in fact the agreement was not being implemented. It is of course still a mystery what the accord says. Both sides had agreed not to reveal the details. Now the composition of the committee has been thrown into doubt. That will lead to questions about its function and ability to play the role of the implementing agency of whatever has been agreed.
Whatever the shape of the accord, other developments point to the difficulties that lie ahead. Senator Amanullah Kanrani, secretary of the Jamhoori Watan Party, has filed a case in the Balochistan High Court against the Frontier Corps through its commandant as well as the district coordination officer in Dera Bugti. The charge is that the Frontier Corps, under the orders of its commandant, and with the collusion of the district coordination officer, launched an unprovoked attack on Dera Bugti, killing 61 innocent people on March 17.
The Jamhoori Watan Party has released the list of these 61 people. They include 19 Hindu children between the ages of one and six, three women, and 11 men. The toll of the dead also includes 28 Bugti tribesmen. Nineteen Hindu men, five women and 33 Bugti tribesmen were injured. Senator Kanrani stated that according to his information, 35 Frontier Corps personnel were killed and 19 injured in the clashes.
The Frontier Corps spokesman, however, had stated that eight of their personnel had been killed and 24 injured in the clash on March 17. Abdul Samad Lasi, the Dera Bugti DCO, had claimed that 20-25 Bugti tribesmen were killed in the clash. The government has yet to clarify the anomalies in the casualty figures put out by both sides.
The Jamhoori Watan Party’s application to the Balochistan High Court asks for action against those responsible for the killing of innocent people. As a result, the Balochistan High Court has served notices on the provincial Home Secretary and police officials.
Senator Kanrani has clarified that despite the impression sought to be created by the government that things were returning to normal in and around Dera Bugti, the situation had not improved materially and Bugti tribesmen and the Frontier Corps personnel were still holding their positions. Markets remained closed. The implementation on the ground of the accord reached between Chaudhry Shujaat and Akbar Bugti had still not started.
In the light of these contradictory statements and the unchanged ground situation, the question arises: what exactly is going on? For one thing, because the accord has still to be revealed, the opposition has refused to participate in the deliberations of the parliamentary committee charged with handling the Balochistan crisis. So the mechanism devised for resolving the imbroglio remains non-functional at the national level as well as at the level of the implementation of the unknown accord.
If this remains the case, it seems unlikely that the parliamentary committee can make much headway in defusing the situation in the Bugti area, let alone getting down to the task of grappling with the long-standing demands and complaints of Pakistan’s poorest and most troubled province.
What is true of the parliamentary and implementation committees is true of the overall approach that seems to inform the government’s efforts to tackle the crisis. There are placating noises and rhetorical commitment to a peaceful resolution through political dialogue, and little or no movement on the ground to show good faith. This can only, as time passes, widen the gulf between the two sides and exacerbate the mistrust that already exists.
If the government means what it says, it should put its money where its mouth is. Without further delay or prevarication, it should take the steps it has agreed to. The simmering crisis in Balochistan has already taken a toll of human lives and property. It has also led to a diplomatic embarrassment for Pakistan since the visiting Chinese prime minister was unable, in view of security concerns, to inaugurate the Gwadar project as scheduled. The onus for overcoming the mistrust and suspicion of the past and mitigating the adverse effects of brutal actions lately lies squarely on the government.
The writer, currently a freelance contributor, has held editorial positions in various Pakistani newspapers |
